Gavaskar v Boycott

[archie mac]

22-7 the people have spoke, must admit I never though there was that much between them

 

[Richard]

Boycott never really retired from Test Cricket, he ruled himself out by going on a rebel tour to South Africa and at his age the three year ban was bound to finish his Test career.
Whether he would have been chosen for the summer of 1982 series against India and Pakistan we'll never know, but considering the fact that England openers that season were the inadequate Geoff Cook, the out of place Chris Tavare and Derek Randall plus one appearance by Graeme Fowler means Boycs might have continued.

I find it likely that he would have been chosen in 82 and beyond. In fact the fact that there were calls for him to be selected in 85 after the suspension was over shows that he would have been a part of the team leading up to the period.

In fairness his age and Robinson's fine form against the touring 85 Australian made a comeback not viable. However, he would have performed better than Robinson in the WI on the 85/86 tour.

Amazing that he would have been a viable Test option at over 45 and that he potentially missed over 60 Test matches due to imposed and self-imposed exciles.

The "if-only"s of Gooch and Boycott between '82 and '84, despite Robinson's impressive debut which contributed hugely to the success in '84\85 and '85, has always been one of my biggest rebel-tours bugbears.

 

[wpdavid]

Yet arguably the fact that he did go on (I may have said this to you before as I recall...) enhanced his standing still further, as at 40 years of age he stood up and did not flinch in the face of the best West Indian attacks of all in 1980 and 1981. And was still regarded beyond all question (despite Graham Gooch's rising star and of times counterattacking brilliance against said attacks) as the most prized wicket what's more.

Agreed, especially as his mid70's exile meant he missed L&T at their peak and our first sight of Roberts, Holding & Daniel. Without 1980 & 1980/81, he was vulnerable to the criticism that he hadn't really faced a world class pace attack and that he's made his runs against relatively soft opposition. I'It also made sure that no-one could seriously suggest that he stayed away to avoid the out-and-out quicks in those mid70's series.

 

[wpdavid]

I find it likely that he would have been chosen in 82 and beyond. In fact the fact that there were calls for him to be selected in 85 after the suspension was over shows that he would have been a part of the team leading up to the period.

In fairness his age and Robinson's fine form against the touring 85 Australian made a comeback not viable. However, he would have performed better than Robinson in the WI on the 85/86 tour.

Amazing that he would have been a viable Test option at over 45 and that he potentially missed over 60 Test matches due to imposed and self-imposed exciles.

The question of what would have happened to Boycs if he hadn't got himself banned in 1982 is an interesting one. He certainly wanted to return in 1985, although I don't think many of the England side at the time felt the same way. I don't think we can say as a matter of fact that he would outperformed Robinson in 1986 either - not at 46 or whatever he was by then. He might have done, but it would have been a quite extraordinary effort.

Presumably he still would have been picked in 1982, but IIRC his performances subsequent to the 1981 WI tour hadn't been that great, so the question was going to be asked at some point. Without the 'rebel' tour, Gooch would've still been around, and one of the younger guys would probbaly have been thought worth a look. My guess is that he wouldn't have toured Pakistan in 1983/4 or India 12 months later, and that might have been the end of it anyway.

EDIT
It turns out he averaged 37 in the 2 series after the 1981 WI tour, which is better than I'd imagined, tbf, especially given the generally low scores in the 1981 ashes. I'll stick with the rest of the above though.

 

[weed wizard]

Nz rocks

Sunny a better batsman.
Geoff a better commentator.

Those were some few good men.

 

[Burgey]

A dead-heat for last place in the "good blokes" stakes, imo.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah, depends on whether you agree with Gavaskar's opinions or not. From all accounts, he's quite lively and jovial to be around. Just because he rants a lot doesn't make him a poor bloke

 

[Burgey]

Who plays the race card at every available opportunity. in my opinion anyway.

 

[G.I.Joe]

He must have a victim mentality, innit?

 

[weed wizard]

nz rocks

Both of them were/are good but here we are asked which of them is better.

Id say,
Gavaskar (batsman)

Boycot (commentator)

 

[Burgey]

He must have a victim mentality, innit?

Let's take this to site discussion!!

 

[Prince EWS]

Who plays the race card at every available opportunity. in my opinion anyway.

Yeah AWTA strongly. He's obsessed with it.

 

[weed wizard]

gavaskar

I wil tell you an incident.
Gavaskar used to play very slow, as all did in those days.
In a test match against england or aussies india declared for 430/4 after batting for 2 long days. Gavaskar main culprit.
He was virtually booed off by eden gard(kolkata) crowd and thrown fruits and plastic bottles.
Since then he never played a match there.

 

[aussie]

It's not Gavaskar's fault that he didn't face some of the best attacks in some of the series he played against WI.

In 1971 he was a debutant, it was still an huge achievement to avg. @155/inning regardless of who was bowling, If not for Gavaskar's(and to some extent Sardesai's) batting India would have lost the 4th and 5th test in that series.

In 1976 he had good success against Holding/Roberts

In1978-89 he had again good success against Clark and Marshall

Again in 83-84 he hit 2 100s and a 90 against Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Davis including his highest score of 236*

So it is kind of preposterous to suggest that Gavaskar didn't have success against the WI pace battery. Yes he did fail against them at times but who didn't ?

His record vs the WI pace is good. Its just its not as good as the the 65 average suggests.

- Obviously runs vs WI in 1971 dont count given the WI had a joke attack then. They had not yet found replacements for Hall/Griffith.

- 1974/75 in India doesn't count either, since he just had to contend with Roberts. One good bowler doesn't make an overall good of course.

- 76 in the Caribbean counts sort of. Only slight critique about this series is although Roberts had back-up in Holding/Julien. Holding was still young & raw from all i've ever read & heard about that series. The general consensus is that Holding didn't peak as test bowler until the ENG tour in 1976. So although & improvement from 74/75, it wasn't a lethal windies attack as yet.

- 78/79 in India certainly doesn't count. The main WI attack which had peaked as 4-prong where away in Packer cricket. The likes of Clark & Marshall where very much still young & raw.

- 82/83 in the Caribbean. Was the first official series when Gavaskar faced the true Windies 4-prong in all its might & glory & they got the better of him. The Great Sunny only averaged 30 for the series. Scoring his only hundred on that road in Guyana.

- 83/84 in India. Sunny improved statistically averaging 50. His 121 in the 1st test being the highlight.

But as the story of this series goes. After the 121, the Windies pacers continued to get the better of him, as the did in caribbean a few months earlier & in that famous 236* in the final test, they windies swore they had him out out caught in the slips off Marshall & where pretty pissed about it. Of course he played superb after that chance & thats all that counts.

So overall looking at what happened in "main" 10 tests between 82-84. The windies quicks had the better of Sunny more often TBF.

The best performance by an opposition batsman vs the windies quicks is not even in record books officially. Which is Greg Chappell's runs in WSC in 79/80 in the caribbean.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The series in 71 was his debut series,why the heck should it not count? This "they hadn't peaked argument" is so simplistic.Gavaskar wasn't at his peak when he faced them....see how the argument can be twisted?

In any case the 4 pronged pace attack only ever played a handful of tests together (a series against Ind and a series against Eng if I am not mistaken). None of the runs scored against WI outside of this two series should count,obviously

Which means Mohinder Amarnath >>> all batsmen bar Bradman

 

[Uppercut]

I partially blame Boycott for institutionalising the idea in England that getting out playing an attacking shot is inherently worse than getting out playing a defensive shot.

 

[Furball]

I partially blame Boycott for institutionalising the idea in England that getting out playing an attacking shot is inherently worse than getting out playing a defensive shot.

It's not just in England. Umar Akmal has received some justified criticism for getting out to some dumb shots this summer, yet pretty much no-one criticised him for his dismissal to Swann in the 2nd Test when he padded up to a straight one, which was far stupider than trying to hit him out the ground and skying it up in the air would have been.

 

[superkingdave]

Gavaskar isn't from Yorkshire

 

[aussie]

The series in 71 was his debut series,why the heck should it not count? This "they hadn't peaked argument" is so simplistic.Gavaskar wasn't at his peak when he faced them....see how the argument can be twisted?

Of course the 1971 series can't count. It wasn't a case of a young talented Gavaskar flaying the might 4-rpong in all its might. He flawed a joke WI attack in post Hall/Griffith transition. So obviously when speaking of Gavaskar's great record vs WI - the 1971 series cannot ever ben considered.

Gavaskar @ his peak vs WI 4-prong @ their peak occured mainly between 82-84 & the Windies quicks clearly got the better of the little master. Thus curtailing the age old myth that Gavaskar "dominated the windies 4-prong".

Your own IND posters SJS highlighted this years ago on CW. So you oughta chill..

In any case the 4 pronged pace attack only ever played a handful of tests together (a series against Ind and a series against Eng if I am not mistaken). None of the runs scored against WI outside of this two series should count,obviously


Which means Mohinder Amarnath >>> all batsmen bar Bradman

Fairly dull sarcasm TBF.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Like I said,those 4 only played only 2 series together.No team aside from Eng and Ind played them together,so runs scored by batsmen against WI from Aus,Pak etc should be discounted?! The point is Gavaskar's record against WI is still miles better than any other batsman's from that era.To put it in perspective,no-one has scored 13 centuries even against the current joke WI attack!

And no that wasn't sarcasm really,Amarnath did average above 60 in that series, I think.Clearly as series against the 4 pronged attack is the only criterion for greatness,Amarnath is among the world's best batsmen if not the best after the Don huh?!

And speaking of bias and double standards,you do a fine job of that yourself.You were bleating about how Ponting overcame his woes in India in the pace vs spin thread.Let's play this your way-Kumble was past his peak then and Harbhajan was in crap form.Sound argument isn't it?

The point is anyone's record can be dissected into small samples to make them look bad,be it Sobers or Lara or Tendulkar or Ponting.Not going to break my head on this though,it's a futile exercise trying to convice those who can't be convinced.